Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moving towards an ID mechanism.
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 141 (261743)
11-21-2005 1:25 AM


Are there indications of an ID mechanism within quantum physics, specifically in the It from Bit interpretation of QM?
There are some aspects of quantum physics, as interpreted by men like John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger, that suggest to me a potential ID mechanism resident within the laws of physics. Wheeler and Zellinger call their interpretation "The It from Bit" and discuss an observer-participancy principle whereby reality is the result of our interactions with it. The basic concepts here though are quite difficult, even among physicists, and this is problematic for this thread topic. There are other interpretations, but at the same time, if we just argue all the other interpretations without people ever becoming aware of the basic claims here, the thread will be useless.
As such and considering the scope of the topic and though not normally a great idea, I plan to be active as a moderator on this thread to help it stay on topic.
To kick things off, let me give a little background and some quotes about the 2 physicists in the OP. Wheeler is the guy that came up with the black hole idea and was mentored by Niels Bohr and was a mentor to Richard Feynman and many others.
The following link is handy, but don't read more into it than I mean here. He is not necessarily accepting Wheeler's thesis here, but he does a good job presenting the basic idea.
Wheeler became even more deeply convinced of the importance of information after concocting a thought experiment that exposed the strangeness of the quantum world for all to see. Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is a variation on the classic (but not classical) two-slit experiment, which demonstrates the schizophrenic nature of quantum phenomena. When electrons are aimed at a barrier containing two slits, the electrons act like waves; they go through both slits at once and form what is called an interference pattern, created by the overlapping of the waves, when they strike a detector on the far side of the barrier. If the physicist closes off one slit at a time, however, the electrons pass through the open slit like simple particles and the interference pattern disappears. In the
delayed-choice experiment, the experimenter decides whether to leave both slits open or to close one off _after the electrons have already passed through the barrier_--with the same results. The electrons seem to know in advance how the physicist will choose to observe them. This experiment was carried out in the early 1990s and confirmed Wheeler's prediction.
Wheeler accounted for this conundrum with yet another analogy. He likened the job of a physicist to that of someone playing 20 questions in its surprise version. In this variant of the old game, one person leaves the room while the rest of the group--or so the excluded person thinks--selects some person, place, or thing. The single player then reenters the room and tries to guess what the others have in mind by asking a series of questions that can only be answered yes or no. Unbeknownst to the guesser, the group has decided to play a trick. The first person to be queried will think of an object only _after_ the questioner asks the question. Each person will do the same, giving a response that is consistent not only with the immediate question but also with all previous questions.
"The word wasn't in the room when I came in even though I thought it was," Wheeler explained. In some ways, the electron, before the physicist chooses to observe it, is neither a wave nor a particle. It is in some sense unreal; it exists in an indeterminate limbo. "Not until you start asking a question, do you get something," Wheeler said. "The situation cannot declare itself until you've asked your question. But the asking of one question precludes the asking of another. So if you ask where my
great white hope presently lies--and I always find it interesting to ask people what's your great white hope--I'd say it's in the idea that thw whole show can be reduced to something similar in a broad sense to this game of 20 questions."
Wheeler has condensed these ideas into a phrase that resembles a Zen koan: "the it from bit." In one of his free-form essays, Wheeler unpacked the phrase as follows: "... every it--every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices,
_bits_."
http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt
What Wheeler is saying is that physical reality is inherently indefined until observed, and that QM experiments demonstrate this. Basically, something exists as information, and only when some information is transferred does that something, the It, become physically defined in one state. As it gives the Bit, so it becomes the It.
Anton Zellinger takes this research a litte further and argues that the reason the photon in the various QM experiments acts as it does is that it is a basic unit. In other words, matter and energy are quantized because information is quantized with it's most basic unit being either yes or no to a question, and as the photon answers that question, then the form changes.
It may sound a little strange, but as you delve into the science here, it makes a lot of sense, and whether right or wrong, it is a viable theory.
The atom of information is the bit--the quantity contained in the answer to a yes or no question. If experiments are questions we ask of nature, then the simplest of them have yes or no answers: "Did the photon arrive here, or not?", "Did the counter click, or not?" We can also ask more complex questions, but they can always be built up from simpler yes or no questions like these.
...
Zeilinger avoids the question "What is an elementary system?" and asks instead, "What can be said about an elementary system?" His conclusion is simply stated: an elementary system carries one bit of information.
It sounds innocuous. But the consequences of Zeilinger's principle promise to be breathtaking. In the first place, it contains the fact that the world is quantised--the very starting point of quantum mechanics.
...
Zeilinger's single, simple principle leads to these three cornerstones of quantum mechanics: quantisation, uncertainty and entanglement.
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html
How this all relates to a potential Intelligent Design mechanism is that it shows, if correct, a different perspective on reality than classical physics and explains the quantum weirdness first of all, and shows, for lack of a better term, a creative action taking place where reality itself comes into being as a response to observation, including the past, as Wheeler shows.
By connecting a direct manifestation of reality, and even arguing that direct manifestation occurs all the time in response to our questions of it, this in my opinion opens the door for observing an ID mechanism whereby observation and intelligence interact with the information of what something could be, and influence that outcome.
In other words, if reality is indeed shaped by the questions we ask of it, then learning to have the right questions or right perspective (faith??) can lead to specific desired outcomes assuming one has a higher level of understanding and knowledge (as an Intelligent Designer would).
We may not be able to directly reproduce the Designer, but we can possibly test for and perhaps even use a mechanism He uses to create things.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 01:32 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 2:36 AM randman has replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 10:31 AM randman has replied
 Message 133 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-11-2005 6:24 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 141 (261747)
11-21-2005 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNWR
11-21-2005 1:32 AM


thanks for promoting it: personal comments
I hate that the OP is so long, but it's too late now. Let me say to all that this week will not be as active as last week, and probably I will post just a little tomorrow and be largely absent for a week.
But I will get back to this thread. This topic on the nature of reality is actually more interesting to me than the ID application I propose here, and I enjoy discussing the learning about the physics here.
My own ideas, I must confess, were not borne originally out of the science as at that time, I was not as aware of QM principles, but it delighted me to find some things I had learned in a different arena so to speak were echoed in QM.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 01:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 11-21-2005 1:32 AM AdminNWR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 141 (261781)
11-21-2005 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
11-21-2005 2:36 AM


how do you respond to Wheeler?
How do you respond to Wheeler's views that the delayed choice experiments indicate physical reality is undefined until the act of observation? Consider this statement.
"No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. "
Cosmic Search Vol. 1, No. 4 - FORUM: John A. Wheeler
He clearly means that things take on definite form as a result of interaction with observation? Leaving off the issue of what constitutes observation for the moment, consider the following quote.
To quote Wheeler - 'It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.'
...
Wheeler again: 'No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is, the elementary device-intermediated act of posing a yes/no question and eliciting an answer. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits.'
Authorization Required
It seems to me Wheeler thinks there is a great bit more indicated by these experiments than you do.
The "creative" element here, thus far, is perhaps better stated as the "making element" in that the thing itself exists as information, but takes on form as a result of observation. The taking on a definite form was what I was referring to as "creative."
Now, it is true that this is just a hint of the potential process because it only explains how information takes on physical form in the real world we live in, but does not state how these fundamental information states come to be.
Nevertheless, this does involve the process of how physical form is created in the sense of manifested as real.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 03:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 3:20 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 141 (261787)
11-21-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
11-21-2005 3:20 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
You are ignoring his fundamental claim. He says physical form is undefined until observation, and is quite explicit in that. The fact the delayed choice experiments are repeatable is all the more evidence that they are correct, right?
Let me ask you this. What do you think Wheeler is saying the fundamental state of things are when they are in the undefined or non-material state?
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 03:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 3:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:04 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 141 (261790)
11-21-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
11-21-2005 3:20 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
Maybe this comment will help?
In some ways, the electron, before the physicist chooses to observe it, is neither a wave nor a particle. It is in some sense unreal; it exists in an indeterminate limbo.
Wheeler thinks the delayed choice experiments and other experiments indicate things exist in an "unreal" state of "an indeterminate limbo" and that all of the universe is built up from this same state.
That's the point here. The information state reacts to create a physical reality in definite form, and part of that reaction is a result of the way observation takes place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 3:20 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 5:23 AM randman has replied
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 AM randman has replied
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 11-21-2005 10:58 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 141 (262050)
11-21-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
11-21-2005 10:58 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
GDR, thanks for that tip, and I have started to look at his comments. I must confess string theory is beyond me, but I am thinking of dusting off some math textbooks and maybe taking some classes on the subject. On things like the 2-slit experiments, I know math is important but there is also the ability to think of the observed facts in concrete terms, if you follow what I mean.
I am not sure without a great deal of significantly advanced math, that string theory is approachable, and from what I've read, I don't know if there is anyway to actually test for it, but then again, they thought that with some aspects of quantum physics 80 years ago.
If you can help illuminate any physics principles, especially Zeilinger's thesis, please feel free to do so. It helps to have some actual working physicists post on the topic even if you disagree with the It from Bit concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 11-21-2005 10:58 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 11-21-2005 7:10 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 141 (262056)
11-21-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 5:23 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
WK, it's more naunced than that. I am a little busy today, but the first point I am trying to make is just the fundamental state of what constitutes physical things. The issue of consciousness is important, though not well-defined by science, but I like Zeilinger's approach because he focusses not on consciousness but the idea of elementary system given a yes or no answer, and so when we look at wave/particle duality, what is happening is that it is not a wave or particle, but an elementary information system that can answer either "wave" or "particle", and once it answers that, it has spent it's "Bit" so to speak.
Gotta go, but there is more here in explaining quantum phenomena that just some sort of vague claim. He has a system for explaining what we observe. In other words, right or wrong, it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 5:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:15 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 141 (262088)
11-21-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Regarding Only QM-ID thought I think
WK, is that really an idea on the table so to speak?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 10:40 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:45 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 141 (262090)
11-21-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
11-21-2005 10:02 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
I think this includes indirect measurements, but there is some question, it seems to me, of whether this is possible with no conscious observers ever.
Let me put it this way. Experiments have been done to show that even the mere potential for knowing something causes a change, which suggests that the elementary particle in reacting, spends it's Bit, as it were, interacting in a way that can be measured down the road.
Sometimes it seems Wheeler and Zeilinger disagree a little there, from just my own reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 AM Larni has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 141 (262091)
11-21-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
11-21-2005 5:04 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
The delayed choice experiments don't deal with "physical form" - they deal with the paths apparently followed by photons. ...I can't see any clear statement of Wheeler's views on what the "fundamental nature" of a particle is before it is measured (although so far as the delayed-choice experiments go the photons are still photons - it is where they appear to have been that is in question).
Wheeler is talking about "form" when he says prior to observation, the photon exists in an "unreal" state, or "undefined" state. It is neither a wave, nor a particle, but is undefined as either, merely existing as the potential for one or the other, until observed.
Zeilinger would say that when the potential for observation takes place, meaning there is a tranfer of information to tell an observer, what form the photon is in, whether it travelled as more wave-like or particle-like, then the photon becomes one or the other based on the Bit of information being spent.
After the Bit has been spent, it cannot be one or the other at the same time, as it was before, as a potential, but is either a wave or a particle. It's information Bit was spent. So it cannot be both any longer.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 05:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:51 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 141 (262094)
11-21-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 10:12 AM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
I had heard of that, and I do believe there are direct connections between mind and matter, and that the energy of the mind via will, and can be expanded via belief, can have a direct affect.
But starting off with that gets into more of a parapsychology debate. I think an objective person studying the facts would admit extrasensory perception is real, and taking it step further, more than information can be involved and even causal effects can occur under certain circumstances.
But on a broader level, I think a bigger claim is that causal effect is always on-going, that there is mutual interdependence of the form of reality we live and the questions we ask of it, which speak to levels of consciousness.
Back to the OP though, I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. The concept that physical things are at their root, or "at the bottom of everything" as Wheeler states, information systems which work by dispensing levels of information in response to the questions posed of them, meaning physical things are first immaterial in a classical sense, existing as potentials for one state or another, and become real in the sense of being single state as a result of interacting with an observer or potential observer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 10:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 141 (262099)
11-21-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 10:31 AM


you miss something here
If aspects of reality are undefined until observed, as you suggest, then the fact that we can detect undefined aspects of particles we're not directly observing (the Afshar experiment) means that nobody else is observing them either, like an omnipotent God.
Your error is assuming that God's observation acts the same as our's. This may be getting ahead of understanding the It from Bit concept, but think of it this way. If our observations from our vantage point result in a single answer, why would God's observation perhaps not allow multiple answers considering the higher state He is in.
In fact, I would argue that God's observation or awareness would of necessity create the initial quantum state of multiple potentials.
There is no transfer of an information Bit to God because God already knows the answer and created the Bit in the first place. It is rather the information Bit works when transferring the knowledge the other way, towards the physical realm from the information state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 10:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 6:03 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 141 (262101)
11-21-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
11-21-2005 5:51 PM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
Firslty I would be reluctant to describe the undecided state of the photon as a "form" since it appears to be more an absence of a definite form.
You are misreading me. The fundamental state is not a form, but is "unreal" or "undefined" according to Wheeler. Those are his words, which I quoted, not mine.
The photon takes on a form upon observation or the potential for observation.
And I willl note that we still have nothing that clearly supports your views - especially not your suggestion that these effects render the past completely unknowable.
Where have I ever said the past is unknowable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 6:05 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 141 (262125)
11-21-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 6:15 PM


Re: how do you respond to Wheeler?
Well, I am not sure the transactional interpretation is as exclusive as it has been presented, but that's a little different topic.
The Copenhagen interpretation seems to actually be several different interpretations all rolled into one, and the It from Bit fits into that, I think.
The Many-worlds does work just as well. So I cannot argue there.
I think the It from Bit concept though has some simplicity in combining information systems with the quantum phenomena, and also provides a groundwork to developing quantum computers potentially.
Personally, I think there may be a bit of truth in a number of approaches. Obviously, I think the It from Bit has merit, but at the same time, it does not preclude many worlds, although it takes away the need for it. At the same time, it suggests perhaps with different observers, there may exist different universes, and so back a little bit to many worlds thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:15 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 141 (262134)
11-21-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Wounded King
11-21-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Regarding Only QM-ID thought I think
Dang, I didn't know that. What do you think about the paper?
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 06:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2005 6:45 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024